...
首页> 外文期刊>The International journal of prosthodontics >Effects of precementation desensitizing laser treatment and conventional desensitizing agents on crown retention.
【24h】

Effects of precementation desensitizing laser treatment and conventional desensitizing agents on crown retention.

机译:粪便脱敏激光治疗和常规脱敏剂对牙冠保持力的影响。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

This study aimed to compare the effect of precementation desensitizing laser treatment and conventional desensitizing agents on crown retention. Crowns were fabricated for 50 molar teeth, and specimens were assigned to 5 groups based on treatment method: untreated control group (CON), laser group (LAS), sodium fluoride group (FLU), Oxagel oxalate group (OXA), and Gluma primer group (GLU). All crowns were luted with glass-ionomer cement. Tensile force was applied for crown dislodgement. Recorded forces and calculated retentive strengths were as follows: CON (261 N) > LAS (223 N) FLU (208 N) > GLU (161 N) force magnitudes between all groups were significant (P < .05), except for LAS versus FLU and GLU versus OXA. The retention decrease was 15% for LAS, 20% for FLU, 38% for GLU, and 44% for OXA. Laser treatment had a less negative effect on retention for crowns luted with glass-ionomer cement than the other treatment modalities, and it may be a more suitable desensitization method if crown retention can be moderately sacrificed.
机译:这项研究旨在比较便秘脱敏激光治疗和常规脱敏剂对牙冠保留的影响。制作了50颗磨牙的牙冠,并根据治疗方法将标本分为5组:未处理的对照组(CON),激光组(LAS),氟化钠组(FLU),草酸草酸酯组(OXA)和Gluma底漆组(GLU)。所有的表冠都用玻璃离聚物胶粘剂诱惑。拉伸力施加于牙冠移位。记录的力和计算出的保持力如下:CON(261 N)> LAS(223 N)FLU(208 N)> GLU(161 N)除LAS与VS相比,所有组之间的力均显着(P <.05) FLU和GLU与OXA的比较。 LAS的保留降低为15%,FLU的为20%,GLU的为38%,OXA的为44%。与其他处理方式相比,激光处理对用玻璃离聚物粘固剂诱惑的牙冠的保留效果具有较小的负面影响,如果可以适当牺牲牙冠的保留效果,则激光处理可能是更合适的脱敏方法。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号